Benchmark Almanac

AgentBench FC

AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct 70.4% tops its leaderboard Claude Sonnet 4.5 58.9% leads the models we track Not in model cards

Agents work five containerized AgentBench environments, ALFWorld, DB, knowledge graph, OS and WebShop, through function-calling prompts instead of the original text format.

Built on the AgentRL framework. The original text-prompt AgentBench stays on the v0.1 and v0.2 tags. The repo shows its own FC results board as an image.

In the authors’ words

The potential of Large Language Model (LLM) as agents has been widely acknowledged recently. Thus, there is an urgent need to quantitatively evaluate LLMs as agents on challenging tasks in interactive environments. We present AgentBench, a multi-dimensional benchmark that consists of 8 distinct environments to assess LLM-as-Agent's reasoning and decision-making abilities. Our extensive test over \num API-based and open-sourced (OSS) LLMs shows that, while top commercial LLMs present a strong ability of acting as agents in complex environments, there is a significant disparity in performance between them and many OSS competitors that are no larger than 70B. We identify the typical reasons of failures in environments and LLMs, showing that poor long-term reasoning, decision-making, and instruction following abilities are the main obstacles for developing usable LLM agents. Improving instruction following and training on high quality multi-round alignment data could improve agent performance. And different from existing assumptions, training on code present ambivalent impacts on different agent tasks. Datasets, environments, and an integrated evaluation package for AgentBench are released at https://github.com/THUDM/AgentBench.

Abstract of AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents (arXiv:2308.03688, CC0)
Made by Tsinghua THUDM (Zhipu AI) Released Oct 2025 Function calling All tasks public Last model added Sep 2025 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
22
Entries on its own leaderboard, 12 models we track

AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct tops the leaderboard with 70.4%

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders. The best model we track is Claude Sonnet 4.5, at 58.9%.

The newest model with a score here came out in Sep 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct 70.4%
  2. 2 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct 67.7%
  3. 3 AgentRL w/ GLM-4-9B-0414 65%
  4. 4 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct 62%
  5. 5 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct 60%
  6. 6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 58.9%
  7. 7 Claude Sonnet 4 thinking 58.2%
  8. 8 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 53.2%
  9. 9 GPT-5 52.2%
  10. 10 AgentLM-70B 51.4%
  11. 11 DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 49.3%
  12. 12 AgentLM-13B 45.1%
  13. 13 AgentLM-7B 42.7%
  14. 14 o3-mini 40.9%
  15. 15 Qwen2.5-72B 40.8%
  16. 16 o4-mini 39.7%
  17. 17 GPT-4o Nov 2024 39.6%
  18. 18 Qwen2.5-32B 37.2%
  19. 19 Hephaestus-8B-IFT 36.3%
  20. 20 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 36.1%
  21. 21 Hephaestus-8B-Base 31.9%
  22. 22 Qwen2.5-14B 27.2%
#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct 70.4% Official leaderboard
2 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct 67.7% Official leaderboard
3 AgentRL w/ GLM-4-9B-0414 65% Official leaderboard
4 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct 62% Official leaderboard
5 AgentRL w/ Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct 60% Official leaderboard
6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 58.9% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Claude Sonnet 4 58.2% thinking May 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 53.2% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-5 52.2% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
10 AgentLM-70B 51.4% Official leaderboard
11 DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 49.3% May 2025 Official leaderboard
12 AgentLM-13B 45.1% Official leaderboard
13 AgentLM-7B 42.7% Official leaderboard
14 o3-mini 40.9% Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen2.5-72B 40.8% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
16 o4-mini 39.7% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
17 GPT-4o Nov 2024 39.6% Nov 2024 Official leaderboard
18 Qwen2.5-32B 37.2% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
19 Hephaestus-8B-IFT 36.3% Official leaderboard
20 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 36.1% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
21 Hephaestus-8B-Base 31.9% Official leaderboard
22 Qwen2.5-14B 27.2% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard

Scores at each effort level

Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
Claude Sonnet 4.5
thinking
58.9%
Claude Sonnet 4
thinking
58.2%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet
thinking
53.2%

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Oct 2025

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Sonnet 4.5 Claude Sonnet 4 Claude 3.7 Sonnet o3-mini Qwen2.5-72B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Sonnet 4.5 o3-mini

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

Versions

More in Tool use

All 125 in Tool use
  • AutomationBench In use Agent completes end-to-end business workflows inside a simulated company exposing dozens of REST APIs. Graded on resulting state. Gemini 4 Carbon 53.9%
  • MCP Atlas In use Multi-step workflows over real MCP servers. Scores tool-use competency on realistic tasks. Muse Spark 1.1 88.1%
  • BFCL V4 In use Models call functions and tools, including multi-turn agentic tasks with web search and memory. Checked against expected calls and outcomes. Qwen3.7-Max 75%
  • τ³-bench Banking In use Agents act as banking customer-service reps over many turns with a simulated user, following policy. Pass^1 on the final database state. Qwen 3.8 Max 55.1%
  • Claw-Eval In use 300 human-verified agent tasks (service orchestration, multimodal, multi-turn dialogue) audited via traces and snapshots. Rubric scores with Pass^3 consistency. Claude Sonnet 4.6 81.4%
  • DeepSearchQA In use Questions that need multi-step search and synthesis. Final answers graded against references. Kimi K3 95%